State Of MP & Others vs Sudama Mandloi

I.A. No.2809/2019 taken up, which is an application for condonation of delay. The writ appeal is barred by 119 days.

It has been stated that the matter was forwarded to the Law Department and after obtaining necessary permission, the writ appeal was preferred and the process has resulted in delay.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the delay of 119 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. I.A. No.2809/2019 stands disposed of.

The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 19.11.2018 passed in W. P. No.17831/2018.

The facts of the case reveal that the respondent is a Forest Guard (a Class-IV employee). He started his career in the year 1998 and some plantation took place in the year 1999, at the time he was appointed. He was later on promoted to the post of Forester in the year 2015 and in respect of an incident of the year 1999 that plantation was not looked after properly, allegations were levelled against him alleging non-performance of duties of alternative plantation, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent for the first time on 28.04.2015. He was posted as Beat In-charge in Titranya Gadgyam Range from 03.07.2001 to 30.06.2005 and the allegation is that he has not looked after the plantation.

The respondent did submit a reply denying the allegations and has pleaded innocence before the department. However, the department not been satisfied with the reply of the respondent has slapped an order of recovery dated 28.07.2018, directing recovery of Rs.47,898/-.

Learned Single Judge in paras-8 to 11 has held as under :-

It is clear from the impugned order of recovery that the petitioner was posted as Beat Incharge in Titranya Gadgyam Range from 3.7.2001 to 30.6.2005 and the plantation was done in the year 1998-99 in Beat No.454 (new 870) over 78.848 Hect. forest land. Amount of Rs.3,97,987/- was spent in the year 1998-99. As per report of Additional Chief Conservator of Forest dated 30.10.2014, only 5% plants were found live and thereafter, Office of Auditor General took objection. Divisional Forest officer, Khargone submitted the report dated 10.5.2007 and according to his opinion, after plantation, it became unsuccessful for want of budget. Clause 5, 6 and 7 of the said report is reproduced below :

"5. रोपण सुरक्षा प्रकार एवं उसका प्रभाव :- संयुक्त वन प्रबंधन के अन्तर्गत गठित ग्राम वन समिति द्वारा सुरक्षा का कार्य कराया जा रहा है रोपित पौधे अल्प वर्षा के कारण असुरक्षीत होना पाये गये है। 6. रोपण की सफलता हेतु सम्पादित मुख्य गतिविधियां :-

स्थल जुताई :- निरंक

गड्डे का आकार :- 45 ग 45 से.मी.

खाद कीटनाशक :- बजट के आभाव में नहीं किया गया

रासायनिक खाद :- बजट के आभाव में नहीं किया गया

पौधों की स्थिति :- ठीक नहीं है।

सिचांई आदि :- निरंक

क्या रोपण सफल है ? हां/नहीं :- नहीं क्योंकि रोपण के बाद बजट के अभाव के कारण सफल वृक्षारोपण हेतु मुख्य गतिविधियों का संपादन नहीं हो सका।"

From the aforesaid it is clear that necessary budget was not made available. Therefore, the petitioner and other employees cannot be held responsible for low rate of survival of plants. According to the petitioner, the plantation work was done by one Late Gunram Patel and during his posting and thereafter, no new plantation work was done. Late Gunram Patel had never handed over the charge of Beat No.454 to him. At the time of assessment on 30.10.2014 also, the petitioner was not posted there. The impugned recovery has been made against the petitioner after a period of 15-16 years and that too without conducting a detailed inquiry. Even in the case of minor punishment, this Court (Principal Seat at Jabalpur) in the case of Rajaram Ratnakar V/s. State of M.P. (W.P. No.4907/2010) has held that the disciplinary authority is required to record the reasons with regard to each misconduct and he cannot pass the order in casual manner rejecting the explanation without any reason and without application of mind. Para 7 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below :

"7- When an employee is proceeded against and a punishment is proposed to be imposed upon him, even a minor punishment should be passed after following the procedure contemplated under Rule

The action of the competent authority in imposing the punishment has serious adverse consequence on the service career of an employee. Punishment imposed may have effect of denying promotion and other service benefits to the employee concerned and therefore, the legislature has provided adequate safeguard in the statutory provisions to rule out unreasonable or arbitrary action being taken. That apart, this is also the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, apart from the fact that the statutory requirement of the rule as contemplated under Rule 16 (1)(d) and 16(2)(7) has not been filed. The manner in which impugned action is taken shows total non application of mind, it is a non speaking order and has been passed in a casual manner without even adverting to consider or discuss the defence of the employee concerned."

In view of the above, the respondents did not consider the fact that at the time of plantation, the petitioner was not posted there and the impugned order of recovery is also silent on the point as to whether the petitioner was given the charge of Beat No.454 for maintenance of plantation. Even otherwise, the recovery after a period of 15-16 years is also not permissible when the report was submitted behind the back of the petitioner and he was not given any opportunity to submit the explanations. Therefore, the impugned order of recovery is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed and the impugned order of recovery dated 28.7.2018 is set aside. Any recovery if already made from the salary of the petitioner, same be refunded to the petitioner forthwith.

Writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand).

Learned Single Judge has taken into account the report of the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest dated 30.10.2014. The plantation was allegedly done in the year 1998-1999 and the report of the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest reflects that only 5% plants were found live and thereafter the office of the Auditor General of M. P. took objection in the matter. The Divisional Forest Officer, Khargone has submitted his report on 10.05.2007 and in the report, it was categorically mentioned that the plantation was unsuccessful for want of budget. It was stated in the report that pesticides and fertilizers were not available for want of budget and as there was no fertilizers and pesticides, the plants were not looked after properly resulting in a very high mortality rate. In those circumstances, learned Single Judge, keeping in view totality of circumstances of the case, has quashed the impugned order. Otherwise also, the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is a non-speaking order. The order has been passed in a casual manner, in respect of some plantation, which took place 15 years back. The respondent is being made a scape-goat and in those circumstances, learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the recovery against the petitioner therein. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Resultantly, present writ appeal stands dismissed.